Correspondence With The Queen

I would be very interested to hear the opinion of those familiar with royal protocol—is this just a “best wishes” generic response from the Queen, or something more?

The Irishwoman and the Republican (in the original sense) in me says “ick.”  “Grovel” also came to mind, but I’m sticking with “ick.”  Still, as a political manouevre I don’t doubt that it was smart.

Honestly, it sounds to me like it’s mostly generic best wishes, but I’m not familiar with royal protocol.

As a political manouevre, it was essential, so as not to be labelled “schismatic” by the “progressives” (who demand grovelling before their agenda and rate a 15 on the 1-10 ICK Factor!!).  Her Majesty’s response was an acknowledgement (not always given), and the “best wishes” are merely that.  This is a political and constitutional tightrope for her.  She cannot be seen “dissing” “her” Abp. of Canterbury for a group that is yet to be defined.  There will be further correspondence, I’m sure, as the FCA develops and strengthens.

I believe the Queen has subtly and indirectly indicated how she feels, but protocol dictates that she cannot speak ex officio from the Throne.  Her position as the reigning Monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, however, deserves respect, and her views, however private they may be, deserve the same consideration.

Her position as the reigning Monarch and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, however, deserves respect,

I respect every person on earth unless they’ve done something for which they deserve to lose respect, so of course in that sense she deserves respect.  But this woman has done nothing more important in her life than, as someone said about Caroline Kennedy, “making it successfully down the birth canal.”  She has no accomplishments either intellectual, spiritual, or humanitarian that set her apart from thousands and thousands of other ordinary people.  She is extraordinary simply because of who her parents were.  In that sense, so is Caroline Kennedy, but I don’t write her groveling letters nor do I suggest that she be made “Supreme Governor” of anything she hasn’t been elected to, much less the Church.

seems that the Bible had something to say about being lukewarm

Catholic Mom,

I too am sympathetic to a republican form of government, but I would remind you that the principles of democracy, as much as I value them and think them sound, are the product of natural human reason, not divine revelation.  Democracy is not part of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.  Rather, the powers that be—whether they be democratic, aristocratic, monarchic, or imperial—are ordained by God.  HM the Queen is, like it or not, by divine grace the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, and is owed all the honour that belongs to that role.  The tone of the letter to which you object is simply that of giving the Sovereign the honour that is due to her.

(Before any Jacobites cavil at my calling her “by divine grace the Sovereign”, let me hasten to add that I, too, should prefer a Stuart on the throne.  But it has not pleased God to allow that.  The Bible says the powers that be, not the powers that ought to be.)

How do you decide which “Sovereigns” are so by “divine grace” and which are not?  Is Obama President by divine grace?  How about Joseph Stalin? 

In fact the Queen is entirely a figurehead with no real powers at all, so whatever Biblical references to secular authority exist, they are hardly applicable to her anyway. Surely you don’t suggest that it would be a rebellion against the Divine Will to simply eliminate the British Monarchy altogether?

I am familiar with royal protocol—which really is not all that different than the protocols that govern any formal and polite correspondence. But I am fairly well-acquainted to Royal correspondence (on a wide array of subjects), and (with all due modesty) I think that I can “read between the lines” fairly well.

The letter to Her Majesty was a simple three-paragraph affair. I imagine that the letter was intended, primarily, to remind the Queen (in very polite and indirect terms) that all is NOT well in her church and in the Anglican Communion, as a whole.

One assumes that her Prime Minister and/or the Archbishop of Canterbury have already explained some of this to her. But nobody is privy to such conversations as may have taken place regarding these issues, and so we cannot know for sure exactly how well-informed the Queen is on these matters.

This letter from the FCA will act as a fairly gentle reminder that things are NOT getting any better.

The secondary purpose of the letter seems to be to apprise Her Majesty (in very polite and proper terms) that a number of prominent clergy in the Church of England are now prepared to take matters into their own hands, since it is perfectly obvious that the hierarchy of the Church of England are unwilling to address these issues in any meaningful way.

The reference to “loyalty” was NOT (in terms of protocol) necessary—but it is a very nice touch, and it effectively frames the FCA as being an instrument of “loyalty”—and not as some sort of schismatic or dissenting organization. By implication, of course, the letter strongly suggests that the revisionist elements in the C of E are, in fact, “disloyal”—both to Her Majesty (as Supreme Governor of the Church), and to historic and orthodox Anglicanism.

The response that the FCA received from Buckingham Palace may seem a bit awkward and stilted to American ears, But, in fact, it is a fairly straightforward assurance that Her Majesty is well aware of the various issues at play, and that she is not unsympathetic to the FCA.

This was MORE than she needed to indicate.

Personally, I would have anticipated a MUCH MORE lukewarm response. The last sentence of the letter explicitly conveys Her Majesty’s “good wishes.” Which she most assuredly did not need to do, under the circumstances.

In fact, that last sentence will undoubtedly infuriate some of the more radical revisionists currently working hard to transform the C of E into something similar to TEC.

Several key things can be confidently asserted, on the basis of Her Majesty’s reply to the initial letter from the FCA.

1.) She has, in fact, personally read the letter from the FCA.
2.) She is reasonably well-acquainted with the full range of issues that are currently tearing apart both the C of E and the Anglican Communion, as a whole.
3.) She is, to some degree (we cannot know for sure precisely to what degree) in authentic sympathy with the position of the FCA.
4.) She does, in fact, consider the FCA to be “loyal” (orthodox), and that she is, personally, possessed of sufficient Christian faith to welcome the prayers of support from these orthodox Anglicans.

These are good things, as far as they go. But, of course, Her Majesty does not directly pull any strings. She can only indirectly influence events. And her usual style of exerting influence is probably NOT going to be very effective in our modern world, in which events unfold at the speed of lightning—or, rather, at the speed of the internet.

Dear Chrs,
But the Stuarts were such an unlucky lot:
James I:  wholesale selling of knighthoods and titles to raise cash, creating an unmanageable aristocracy.
Charles I:  completely out of touch with his people.  Civil War.  Beheaded.  Martyr at the end.
Charles II:  trade deficits with France, Great Fire of London, consistent plague, dies without legitimate issue.
The Duke of Monmouth (illegitimate son of Charles II:  Rebellion against the designated (but unpopular successor), James II.  Beheaded.
James II:  Arrogant and committed to ruling without a legislative branch (hmmmmm.)  Exiled when his second wife produced a Roman Catholic heir.
William II (a Stuart on his mother’s side, she being Ch. II’s sister) & Mary (daughter of James II and his first, Protestant wife, Anne Hyde):  William conquers Ireland and outdoes Cromwell for bloody and cruel executions, the results being with us to this day.  Mary dies young.
Anne:  attempted to veto Bill of Parliament and almost brought Britain back to a republic at that point.  (No sovereign has vetoed a Bill since).  dies childless after fourteen pregnancies. 
Descendants of James II: 
Bonnie Prince Charlie:  almost took the kingdom -got as far as Oxford- , but could not hold his coalition together to take London.  Ended his days as a dependent of Louis XIV.
Brother:  ended his days as a Roman Catholic cardinal.
“Finite la commedia.”

The Hanovers/Windsor-Mountbattens, for better or worse, are and have been God’s provision for Britain since 1714, and while their record is mixed, the reigns of Georges V & VI, and of the present Queen have been marked by personal dignity and self-sacrifice for their country and their people.  For the following generations, I have little good to say of her progeny and William is still an unknown factor, although HM has been giving him “kingship lessons” every week of his young life, something she never did with her own son.  The best I can hope for is a VERY short reign (or non-reign) for Charles III (given the first two Charleses, what should we expect?) and a long and honourable reign for William V.

For God and His anointed sovereign,
R. N. Wightman+
Sherman, TX (an isolated outpost of the late British Empire)

Catholic Mom, how about looking at it this way - there is a protocol for communicating with a head of state, even a titular one. “Groveling” to us rebels is really just custom and protocol there. We have our own protocols that are doubtless icky to people in other countries.

Umm…does God have his hand in who kills who on the way up or does he just “annoint” them and give them his divine mandate once they get there?  If I aim a nuclear device at Britain and demand that everyone declare that I am the actual Queen, and I get the Archbishop of Canterbury to crown me, does everybody then owe me their allegiance?  Sorry… the whole thing is absurd. 

And you didn’t answer the question as to whether Joseph Stalin held his position by “Divine Grace” and if not, why not. (I mean the Romanovs, who built a whole religious cult around themselves, achieved and held power by much the same means, so if they were “Holy Tsars” why not Joe??)

oscewicee:  Well, that’s what I said.  It was gross, but maybe politically useful.

Catholic Mom,
Both David and Solomon had blood on their hands, ascending the throne.  That’s a non-starter if you want to be biblical about it.
As for the Romanovs, Nicholas II and his family were personally VERY devout: daily church services.  Josef Stalin was proud to be an atheist and anointed himself (figuratively) in the blood of the Romanovs and the Russian people, millions of them.
Royalty is “chosen” and “unchosen” by God as the daily lectionary this week has shown, with God deposing Saul and choosing David.  Blameless life is not a qualification, and often God chooses the oddest and most unsuitable people.
Figure this:  the GREAT monarchs:  Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, all led dubious personal lives and fought wars most of their lives, delighting in the game of global politics.  They died peacefully in their beds.  The three monarchs who were a) absolutely faithful to their wives; b) kind and loving fathers to their children; c) were personally devout, and d) enjoyed innocent amusements: art collecting, watchmaking, photography (respectively): Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II were all executed by their own people.

The ways of God are very odd.  But even David forbade his men from killing Saul “for he is the Lord’s anointed.”

RNW+

#10 bluenarrative has the gist of it, I think (me being a closet Anglophile and studier-from-afar of the British Monarchy, its history and protocols).

Much as we Americans might be uncomfortable with the pomp and ceremony that surrounds hereditary monarchs, the fact remains that the clergy and laity of the English church are still subjects of the Queen and the English church is at least nominally under her leadership.  This was no more gross than any polite letter to a person in a position of authority.

It was also a smart move that paid off nicely with the Queen’s wishes for a “successful” event.  I would have preferred a response direct from the Queen herself, but I think we can say at a minimum that the Queen is not opposed to either GAFCON or the UK-based fellowship.

I take considerable pride in being a citizen of a republic, but I wouldn’t condemn my English friends and brothers for their loyalty to the Good Ole’ House of Windsor.  All they did was give us one of the world’s best models for humane self government.

Wolverine

Catholic Mom, We, all of us, each and every one,in whatever position and place, are here by Divine Grace. Please take note that the trees at which you appear to be looking are, in fact, a forest.

Wolverine - I’m sorry to report, but you’ve not been “a citizen of a republic,” since at least the mid- to late 1860s.  My apologies for dropping this bombshell on you like this(wink).

john1 That’s fine, but then it has no meaning at all in this context.  Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were in their position and place by divine grace by this definition.  They are not ipso facto worthy of any special respect which sets them apart from the rest of humanity.

Still have not answered the question as to what constitutes being “annointed.”  Specifically, if I force my way onto the throne of England via nuclear device and the Archbishop of Canterbury annoints me, am I “God’s annointed?”  If not, why not?

How do you decide which “Sovereigns” are so by “divine grace” and which are not?  Is Obama President by divine grace?  How about Joseph Stalin?

You don’t “decide”; God does.  Every sovereign—yes, even Stalin—rules by divine permission and is therefore owed due honour and obedience.  He doesn’t have to be good or pleasant.  The “powers that be” that St Paul was originally writing about were neither Christian nor democratic; quite the contrary.  The emperor who was the “power that was” at the time St Paul wrote was the one under whose authority St Paul himself was beheaded, bearing witness to the Saviour with his life.

But for all that the emperor was the enemy of Christ and of the Church, he was nevertheless the sovereign, and his power, as Christ said, was given to him from above.  The obedience that we owe our rulers is not conditioned on whether we approve of them personally or of the manner in which they were chosen.  It follows, instead, from the power that is given to them from above.

You don’t “decide”; God does.  Every sovereign—yes, even Stalin—rules by divine permission and is therefore owed due honour and obedience.

So any attempt to overthrow Stalin or Hitler would be a revolt against the divine will?  I mean that’s the only possible conclusion but I just want to hear somebody say it.  Can anyone explain then how it was OK to depose/execute Saddam Hussein??

Fr Wightman,

Well the Stuarts had a mixed record (on the plus side I am thankful for the Authorised Version of the Bible), and you are right that the currently-reigning House has, on balance, a pretty good record.  But I cannot help but regard the so-called “Glorious Revolution” as an unlawful rebellion.

However, it was a successful rebellion and the polity it left behind has been admirably stable.  So like it or not (and I don’t), the dynasty that it installed has to be regarded (now) as legitimate.

Chris, I second Catholic Mom’s question. Is it then wrong ever to oppose an existing government, no matter how brutal?

Oh, goody.  Another mole hill. By all means let’s make a mountain.

So any attempt to overthrow Stalin or Hitler would be a revolt against the divine will?

No, that is not necessarily true.  Just as there can be such a thing as a just war, there can be such a thing as a just rebellion.  It is clear to me that a rebellion against Stalin or Hitler would have been eminently just.

But until such a just rebellion has been successfully concluded and a new, more just polity has been established, the existing rulers no matter how tyrannical remain the “powers that be.”

It’s not pretty, but that is what Scripture and Tradition teach.  And that is what has to be our guide, not the “democratic values” (derived from the so-called “Enlightenment”) that were drummed into us as schoolchildren.

Catholic Mom, this is going to be a circular argument.  Most on the thread seem to appreciate the wise use of protocol in this case.  The formation of this new part of the Anglican church does have political elements.

I understand your questioning of the validity of the Queen, given who you are, and I appreciate it.  However, those that wrote the Queen did so rather skillfully, IMO.  The references and comparisons of the Queen to brutal dictators seem to be a stretch to me, except in some academic sense.  Some say the Queen does not have power, but I disagree.  She has some power to influence events, as she has given her life to service, and has done an admirable job in many peoples’ opinion, which gives her a certain amount of goodwill within and without the U.K. I believe she should not be totally discounted in her ability to help shape events, or in her ability to see events with the eyes of a very astute political observer.

She is not without flaws, or mistakes, but then again, who in this mortal world is?

Thankyou bluenarrative, your reading of HRM,s letter is correct to my mind, if she had a sense of humour it would also say wink wink nudge nudge enough said…,
Catholic mother, your reference to Caroline Kennedy confirms something I have thought about often, Americans having no royalty of their own since the revolution have elevated the Kennedy family to the position, celebrities enjoy the same adulation and awe. In Canada we have royalty lite, our Queen comes for a nice visit, assures us of her good wishes, mingles with the crowd a pleasant time is had by all and she goes back to the palace,
(bye the way, I have great respect for the political work of the Kennedys)

Catholic Mom,

Could you cool the anti-British, anti-monarchy rhetoric just a little? I’m getting quite steamed up here and might say something I could regret about the quality of heads of state produced by the American system over the years or (frankly) the Irish system too.

I know the Queen doesn’t have the integrity of a Richard Nixon or the intellectual breadth of a Gerald Ford. Her private life may not be as spotless as J F Kennedy.  But if you still think an elective system always throws up a better person than the hereditary system we have - fine, you carry on thinking that.

And you may not like the language of the letter and its very stylised manner of addressing the monarch. But if you were to write to the President or the Toiseach you would adopt a respectful tone if you wanted to be heard. Autres pays autres moeurs. Just let us do things the way we do them, please.

What about revolutions that create a *worse* regime?? That overthrow a more humane one to create an oppressive and brutal one?

#10 bluenarrative:
Thank you so very much for your interpretation of the letter sent by the FCA and Her Majesty’s response.  When I read both the letter and the response my first thought was that this was a polite missive following the proper protocol for such a situation.  But, of course, I did not know how to “read between the lines” of both notes and felt there must be something more. 

Thank you so much for your insight. 

Let us all hope that it is as you see it.  While Her Majesty may not exert great influence in such spheres, she may still soften hearts and encourage the faithful.

William S, although I’m not one of Her Majesty’s subjects, I agree with you.  I appreciated the language of the letter and its intent.  Unfortunately, many on this side of the Pond don’t.

William S, just to clarify, I regard the Queen most highly
especially her sense of duty and the lite comment is not meant to be hurtful. God Bless Her

And yes, Her Majesty does have a sense of humor….a lovely one, or so I’m told by relatives in Wales.

Catholic Mom, I don’t understand with anger.  This Queen by all accounts has carried herself well in a very difficult job, and has displayed no obvious moral failings, which sets her apart from most world leaders.  She has earned our respect.

Having said that, this whole affair seems to be a diversion. Have we moved on from a naive assumption that Rowan Williams would rescue the conservatives to an even more naive assumption that the Queen is somehow going to do the same?  Political realities in England would prevent the Queen from doing anything substantial to favor the reasserters.  She is also 83 years old, and her successor, Charles, will if anything be an advocate for the revisionists.  Emphasizing the influence of the Queen will thus backfire in the near future.  If there is to be an orthodox Anglican witness, it will not be tied to the Crown.

I’ve got nothing going for or against the Queen as a person or frankly, for that matter, as a Queen.  She may be a wonderful person and a great Queen (whatever a great Queen is.)  I haven’t said a thing about the quality of American leadership and I CERTAINLY didn’t compare her to Stalin or Hitler (geez—how could you compare a figurehead to an actual leader much less a brutal dictator?) 

However, a very clear statement was made about the “divine right of kings” which effectively says that we owe allegiance to all rulers simply because they ARE rulers irrespective of how they got to be rulers or how they act as rulers. In order to demonstrate that this is a logical absurdity one must, of course, ask if this extends to the “subjects” of Hitler and Stalin.  And I’m told that it would OK to rebel against them but

until such a just rebellion has been successfully concluded and a new, more just polity has been established, the existing rulers no matter how tyrannical remain the “powers that be.”

which I take to mean that we should show all due deference and respect to them right up until the trapdoor drops.    This takes the definition of “allegiance” to a very unusual place.

The Queen’s letters are drafted for her by others who aim to please correspondents without getting involved in controversy.  Her job is the impossible job of pleasing all the people all the time, and she does it pretty well.

Anyone who reads anything more than politeness into her letter is deluded.

To get more back to the point, the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury participated in a “blessing” of an adulterous relationship—one in which one of the parties had a living spouse.  [That they themselves knew that this was so and that one party was not free to remarry is demonstrated by the fact that no marriage ceremony was performed as would certainly have been the case otherwise.] Aside from the question of whether she has any influence at all on developments in the Anglican Communion (which hasn’t been demonstrated) what makes anyone think that she isn’t sympathetic to the ordination of non-celibate gays?  I’ll bet you she’s surrounded by non-celibate gays.

I think the correspondence with Elizabeth II was extremely appropriate and well-done.  I am heartened that FCA has done this so properly: letting the “Defender of the Faith” know in advance of its activities and loyalty.  As for our being shocked at this courtesy to the Queen, what church do we think we are aligned with?  The Church of England always has a British monarch at its head.  Yet that is the church that most of us chose. No human government is perfect (no, not even democracy), but Anglicanism developed under these circumstances and it preserved the purest doctrine and liturgy in the world.  (I assume that many agree with this—since we are indeed Anglicans.)  I understand the feeling for the house of Stuart, by the way (under which we received the King James Version of the Holy Bible and other treasures and stalwarts of the faith); but the present house, despite many ups and downs, is not without honorable members.  I think of the courage and compassion of Elizabeth II’s parents during wartime and of the dignity and many compassionate charities of Elizabeth herself.  I applaud the FCA leaders for their diplomacy and sense of good order.

What is really of interest to me, is not this correspondence from the Queen, but the earlier correspondence from her that is referenced

“We were immensely grateful to receive your response of 5th December copied, together with our letter, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘understanding the commitment to the Anglican Church that prompted you and your brethren to write as you did’.”

Her quote seems quite favorable, in my opinion.  It indicates not that merely that she received and reviewed their initial letter, rather, it indicates her “understanding.”

And, she copied the ABC.

I should add this:  the Queen does not read all the letters sent to her, that would be impossible, although all letters sent to her receive a reply on her behalf. 

The Queen is shown a selection of letters and a selection of draft replies, on a more or less random basis, but most of the replies go out without being seen by her. 

She never personally signs replies to correspondence from anyone except close family and friends and it is impossible to tell from the replies which are sent out on her behalf which of them she has personally approved.

The expression “I am to convey Her Majesty’s good wishes to all concerned for a successful and memorable event” is typical of the turns of phrase used in these replies.  It shows goodwill, but no more goodwill than the Queen extends to all her subjects, in all the nations of the Commonwealth.

The expression

Bluenarrative (10), I, too, find your comment helpful, so much so that I’ve posted it on my blog.  Thank you.

Catholic Mom, maybe it somehow comes under the heading of “render unto Caesar…”. 

I understand your questioning as to the validity of the Queen.  She is the symbolic head of the COE, and in that case it would be to question the very foundations of COE, which is yours to question.  I would add that most of us have moved beyond questioning whether or not the COE is a valid church, in the historic sense.

Recent actions (or inactions) have made many of us question the validity of the church, if it keeps floating too far away from traditional moorings.  We take for granted that it is a legitimate church, and the Queen is its’ legitimate, secular head.

Some don’t believe the Pope is infallible.  Some do.  You could argue academically to infinity, and never convince some one way or the other.

Not to stir things up too much, but I actually agree with Catholic Mom on this one.

This Queen by all accounts has carried herself well in a very difficult job, and has displayed no obvious moral failings, which sets her apart from most world leaders.  She has earned our respect.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2006/04/22/job-review-for-qe2/

I find it rather interesting that people will grovel and throw around ridiculous titles like Highly Exalted Majesty for the sake of protocol, while Mordecai refused to bow to Haman even when it might have meant his death.

Catholic Mom:

What I think you are forgetting as an American is that this leter was sent to Her Majesty by HER SUBJECTS!!!  I am proud for at least another year or so till ICE deals with its massive backlog to remain both a subject of Her Majesty and Her ‘Dearly beloved and trusted Friend.’

Comparing Elizabeth II to Caroline Kennedy is indeed preposterous, and maybe even just a wee bit of jealousy… look how many Americans travel to Britain to see all the tourist attractions centered round the Monarchy (remember we are a contsitituional monarchy in the UK and Commonwealth).

Perhaps it may entertain you that one of the parts of applying for US citizenship, was myself as HER SUBJECT, writing to HM requesting her persmission to dissolve my Oath of Loyalty to her taken upon entry into HM Forces.

I think you forget that when in uniform HM very proudly wears the medals she earned in WW2, just like Harry went to Afghanistan (haven’t heard of any Kennedy’s going in harms way) so that makes three generations of Royals who have gone in harms way with the people.  Also if one pays attention to details you will notice that the Queen herself bows to both Military Colours and The Cenotaph in London, as she acknowledges from her her authority her power comes from those prepared to defend her throne.

Of course we could always be bad and raise the question of Spain, Monaco and Luxembourg, all of which are ‘Catholic’ countries with hereditary monarchies:)

God Preserve Queen Elizabeth
Pax,

Alasdair

haven’t heard of any Kennedy’s going in harms way

I’ll agree with you that the life and career of Caroline Kennedy does not compare with that of Elizabeth II, but…..
If you go back to WWII, Alasdair, I think you will find out the Kennedy’s spent their time in harms way- Joe, Jr. giving his life for our country (and yours) with the USAAC and John, of course, the skipper of PT 109, both with their share of medals earned under fire.  And as we learned tragically in the 1960’s- being a Kennedy might mean you were under fire.
  Whether you agree with them politically or not, I don’t know that they deserve derision as a family.  Many of them have served this country, including its armed forces, and a substantial portion of the generation born in the 20s and 30s gave their lives.  Like any other “rich and famous” family, they have had their share of miscreants, but lets don’t go tarring all of them with the same brush.

Alasdair,

haven’t heard of any Kennedy’s going in harms way

President Kennedy saw combat as a Naval officer in the Pacific theater during World War II.  He was decorated for heroism.

(I’m not a fan of the Kennedys, but fair is fair.)

To pin hopes on this letter seems be the definition of grasping at straws.

tjmcmahon:

Apologies as I meant since WW2, and was in the process of correcting it when Comcast also played with my head on the street, and not the current generation of the Kennedy Clan. I was trying to point out that the Windors know their duty, as indeed it is my duty to defend my Monarch (I took and oath to defend the Sovereigns Majesty after all… )

Apologies all for the tone since in this day and age when anyone who knows anything, realizes that HM’s hands are tied in more than one way.

I am also away that the VP Biden’s son is currently in Iraq.

Probably not put very well, but Catholic Mom got my ire up, with her tone.  It is probably a generational thing, as I am well aware of the service rendered by the previous generations of Kennedy’s and no insult was mean mearly pointing out that none of the current generation have served.

God Save The Queen!!!

Pax,

Alasdair

On Catholic Mom’s question about killing Hitler or Stalin, the morality of tyrannicide was a much debated question in the 16th and 17th centuries in England and Anglicanism took a clear position on the matter: the answer is a clear “No” (i.e., it is not morally permissible to assassinate Hitler or Stalin). (The Catholic contribution to the debate is the claim that it is lawful to kill a tyrant, say one who has abandoned the Roman Catholic faith, if the Pope OKs it.)

Of course the position re Hitler and Stalin and suchlike is a difficult one, which is why the ethics of tyrannicide are still much debated among Christians.

I find it rather interesting that people will grovel and throw around ridiculous titles like Highly Exalted Majesty for the sake of protocol, while Mordecai refused to bow to Haman even when it might have meant his death.

Isn’t that partly the difference - it might have meant death. His refusal had a point. What point does violating the present protocol for the Queen have other than being rude? I’m not a fan of monarchical government, but I don’t see why we should be pitching bricks at any palaces when our own form of government has so many failings of its own. And I say that as one committed to representative democracy without the trappings of monarchy. (There are Americans slinging around “highly exaltes” too - just ask the Masons.)

Long way around to the point - what is being served by attacking the British form of government on this thread? Other than alienating British friends? When someone starts asking us to bow and submit, it will be time to complain. (That particular war was over quite some time ago, y’all.)

#52

I agree wholeheartedly oscewicee. The tone is only serving to alienate the Brits on SFiF.

Alasdair

CM,
Don’t forget that the Queen is the “Head of State”. As such, deference to her is to be understood as deference to authority in general. It is deference to her office, even if one disapproves of her handling of it or feels that she is not actually doing anything with her office.

In Republics such as ours (was!), the authority that once belonged to the king is dispersed across the three branches of government, (judicial, legislative and executive), in order to keep all power from being in the hands of one person. Constitutional monarchies such as England are set up to disperse power in a different way (Parliament), although there is less separation of power in such a system. The scope of goverment authority, once in the hands of the king, is not reduced (unless by a constitution). It is merely dispersed.

The concept of limited government means that even though we have a state that does carry God’s mandate, that state and it’s officers have agreed for their power to be limited by a Constitution and Bill of Rights (in our society).

One of the reasons why conservatives (or really classical liberals in my case) are so worried about the expansion of the government’s powers into those areas forbidden by the constitution, is that at some point it forces the citizens to have to make very painful choices in terms of civil disobedience or even armed rebellion. A limited government makes elections much calmer because all sides spend less time worried that their rights are about to be stomped by their victorious enemies and vice versa. One of the reasons why Europe had such horrendously violent wars was the lack of limited government on the continent.

So, the queen is symbolic of the govt’s authority, which Biblically is acknowledged. It doesn’t mean that a subject is so much loyal to her as an individual but to the ideal of orderly society that she represents. One is loyal to her office, not necessarily her person.

In our system, I can still honor Obama and the congress, even if they are not doing their jobs as I wish them to. I and other citizens have the opportunity to replace them, but NOT their authority which simply transfers to whoever fills their position.

I’m sure you already know this, but others may not.

And interesting more than one person has pointed out fears when Charles comes to the throne.  Charles has said frequently he would prefer his title to be ‘Defender of Faith’ and not ‘Defender of the Faith.’ Even though I think technically that would require Papal permission. The Governance of the Church of England is no longer a worry for me as I swam the Tiber quite happily.

Incidentally a monarch doesn’t normally rule under their own name, as just like a Pope, the first question upon accession is ‘By what name do you wish to reign under?’  Elizabeth II is famous for answering “my own of course.”

Alasdair

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

I suppose that I should confess that, like some others commenting on this thread, I am a ferociously loyal subject of Her Majesty.

Actually, I am dual-citizen (a position that is ambiguous according to American law and practice)—I hold TWO passports.

I reside in the United States at present, and I legally exercise all of my rights and responsibilities as a citizen of the United States of America—I vote in American elections; I participate in political discourse and try to influence political opinions; I pay all of my taxes here (quite a lot of taxes, I think); I will enthusiastically support and uphold the constitution and the government of this great republic; I consider myself to be truly an American.

But, at the same time, I remain, in the eyes and laws of the British Government, a British citizen and a subject of Her Majesty. I exercize no priviledges as a British citizen—I do not vote in British elections; I do not participate in discourse that concerns itself, in any way, with British politics; I pay no taxes to any local British government, nor do I pay any British taxes at all. I don’t live there. I do, however, visit as often as I can. I have spent a large portion of my life not just living in England, but—more importantly—spending most of that time living in London!

I am NOT giving up my British passport, however.

As long as the British authorities are happy to allow me to keep my British passport, and as long as the American government does not see fit to challenge my possession of a British passport, I intend to keep it.

I can always high-tail it back to the UK if things get too strange on this side of the Atlantic. In theory, at least. And be received in the UK as an unquestioned Brirish citizen—taking on all of the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

Though, I have to say, in all honesty, that, right now, it’s a complete toss-up, as far of which side of the Atlantic Ocean is to be considered to be more bizarre and untenable than the other… If you know what I mean.

I think I prefer the outlook of His Holiness John Paul II to that of one of our Roman Catholic commenters on this thread.

During Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Rome in the year 2000, he had this to say:

Your Majesty’s visit immediately brings to mind the rich heritage of British Christianity and all that Great Britain has contributed to the building of Christian Europe, and indeed to the spread of Christianity throughout the world, since Saint Augustine of Canterbury preached the Gospel in your lands. Through that long history, relations between the United Kingdom and the Holy See have not always been untroubled; long years of common inheritance were followed by the sad years of division (cf. Address in Canterbury Cathedral, 29 May 1982, No. 5). But in recent years there has emerged between us a cordiality more in keeping with the harmony of earlier times and more genuinely expressive of our common spiritual roots. There can be no turning back from the ecumenical goal we have set ourselves in obedience to the Lord’s command.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/oct-dec/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20001017_queen-elizabeth-ii_en.html

And this:

Your Majesty, for many years now and through times of great change you have reigned with a dignity and sense of duty which have edified millions of people around the world. May the Almighty grant Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness and the members of the Royal Family his unfailing light and strength amid the challenges and difficulties of your calling. May he bless the citizens of the United Kingdom with happiness and peace; the Commonwealth with the benefits of a heightened sense of solidarity and cooperation; and the Christian people of your realm with a fresh outpouring of the grace of Jesus Christ, “the same yesterday, today and for ever” (cf. Heb 13:8).

Surely Anglicans and Roman Catholics alike would do well to follow his gracious example.

bluenarrative [#10], your exposition on the Queen’s letter is certainly interesting to American eyes and ears.  However, to this American, it seems to read a great deal into a very short letter.  Not that I wouldn’t like to believe it;  but it is just not apparent why it warrants a crytological decoding.

Seen-Too-Much, I highly recommend a viewing of “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister.”

time will tell, Seen-Too-Much

In Republics such as ours (was!), the authority that once belonged to the king is dispersed across the three branches of government, (judicial, legislative and executive), in order to keep all power from being in the hands of one person. Constitutional monarchies such as England are set up to disperse power in a different way (Parliament), although there is less separation of power in such a system. The scope of goverment authority, once in the hands of the king, is not reduced (unless by a constitution). It is merely dispersed.

This is where you are wrong.  Those powers rest with the people, with governmental authority being delegated therefrom.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

C’mon, man! Help us at least maintain the illusion!!!

Comparing Elizabeth II to Caroline Kennedy is indeed preposterous, and maybe even just a wee bit of jealousy… look how many Americans travel to Britain to see all the tourist attractions centered round the Monarchy

Well, perhaps Caroline Kennedy is a poor object for a tourist cult. For one thing, she utterly lacks any of the charisma both her parents so famously had. Perhaps Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley would do better.  True, they’re dead, but that just makes it easier to write letters in their name.

I was impressed but not surprised to see that the graciousness of the Pope with respect to the British monarchy exceeds mine.  [One is tempted to say “on the other hand, he’s a German and so is she” but that would just get me in trouble again. ]

This was an important set of correspondence on an important topic and notwithstanding badman’s dismissal both letters and replies were drawn to the Queen’s attention and approved if you read the wording carefully.  She takes her role seriously.

I am not going to venture an opinion on what is said - it speaks for itself.

Btw it is worth remembering that all Church of England clergy from the ABC down take an oath to the Queen on their ordination and consecration.  This is why the CofE is different.  It is an established church and there are obligations on clergy both as citizens and as priests.  So the question of loyalty in relation to the Supreme Governor of the Church is important and sets the CofE apart in its structure.

It is also worth remembering that HM is Queen of the United Kingdom and its territories, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc etc…in fact of 15 other countries.  In addition she is Head of the Commonwealth of 53 nations.  So she has a role as head of state as well as in another capacity for territories larger in extent than the President of the United States, to whom we extend respect for his office and would not presume to opine on the validity of his constitutional position.

look how many Americans travel to Britain to see all the tourist attractions centered round the Monarchy

Well, yes, us Americans are as attracted to ostentations displays of wealth and grandeur as the next person.  We also travel to see the Coliseum and the other remains and Imperial Rome, and the palaces of the Tsars.  But has far as monarchy goes, the quote that comes to mind is “May God bless and keep the Tsar, far away from us.”

Correction: I see it was the Polish pope that spoke so graciously to the Queen. Luckily I didn’t make the German joke.

Catholic Mom:

I was impressed but not surprised to see that the graciousness of the Pope with respect to the British monarchy exceeds mine. [One is tempted to say “on the other hand, he’s a German and so is she” but that would just get me in trouble again. ]

Yes, there’s been quite enough trouble for one day.

Especially in light of the fact that His Holiness John Paul II was Polish, not German.

Would you like to take “The House of Saxe-Coburg” for $100 in the next round? 

Catholic Mom:

Correction: I see it was the Polish pope that spoke so graciously to the Queen. Luckily I didn’t make the German joke.

Oh, we’ve cross posted and you’ve been coached.

You may now take “German Jokes and the House of Hanover” for $500 in the lightning round.

That’s where the numbers can really change.

But you may want to avoid “Non-Italian Popes Since Hadrian VI.” 

It’s a tough category.

Mad Potter:  C’mon—the Irish coud produce 68 comments on your post alone.

episcopalienated: I’m taking “the difference between a citizen and a subject” for $500.

Unfortunately I’ll have to quit before the final round though because when I had my first child I was told “sleep when the baby sleeps” and I still find that if I don’t do it they’re up and playing war games on the computer before I can get down here in the morning and stop them.

Dear Mad Potter,
Could be that we just like to talk to each other.  Could be we had nothing better to do today.  Could be it was a fun topic to slosh around in, while the P-Bess labels the rest of the believing Christian world (the Pope and Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Evangelicals, Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, and a fair number of the people she claims to lead) as “heretics.”  Could be that it was just too dang hot to do anything else.  See, lots of reasons.  Pick one that makes you happy. 
Cheers,
RNW+

Aw, shucks, Catholic Mom, you can’t go to bed before the lightning round!!

Mad Potter:

For the life of me I can not imagine how you guys managed to produce now 68 comments on what is just pro forma communication.

And if Triumph the Insult Comic Dog was a registered commenter at Stand Firm, we could easily produce 68 more.

As it is, Catholic Mom and I are doing the best we can, with Oscewicee backing us up.

Now, where’s that almost-live firework display we were promised from Anaheim?

I’ve already put the kids to bed, and from here on out they can fend for themselves.  I fully intend to enjoy the show.

And just think….if everyone who is “playing along at home” would also post, we might set a record!

JamesK #62,

Actually I think you make my point. I’m all for article IX and X. As I said, the constitution limits the power of the government, and transfers those rights to the people.

However, from a Biblical perspective, there is no such thing as rights or limited government. The King, scripturally speaking, is to be a benevolent dictator. That’s why I’m seeing the role of the government as a continuum with the OT, only in “free” societies we have agreed for the common good to limit the government’s powers.

Rights are a modern construct that is not exactly in conflict with scripture, especially in a society that has a limited government such as ours (used to have!).

BTW, I have no sympathies with Christian Reconstruction or theonomists, in case anyone wonders. Christians are just as corrupted by power as the lost, only they don’t acknowledge it since they think they are doing God’s work, so that makes them even more dangerous at times.

Re: Post 19 (larswife)— All right, who let the Confederate in here!

Wolverine

[63] Catholic Mom,

In reply to your comment

One is tempted to say “on the other hand, he’s a German and so is she” but that would just get me in trouble again

I, as a German-American Catholic can only reply Nein! Nein! Sicherlich nicht!

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer